Not upheld: failure to communicate corporate actions adequately; alleged breach of duty of care complaint against Hargreaves Lansdown Asset Management Limited
Financial Ombudsman decision DRN-6236851 of 2026-04-10T00:00:00+00:00. failure to communicate corporate actions adequately; alleged breach of duty of care complaint against Hargreaves Lansdown Asset Management Limited. Outcome: Not upheld.
Decision detail
| Reference | DRN-6236851 |
|---|---|
| Decision date | 2026-04-10T00:00:00+00:00 |
| Firm | Hargreaves Lansdown Asset Management Limited |
| Product | investment account (Lifetime ISA with shares) |
| Claim type | failure to communicate corporate actions adequately; alleged breach of duty of care |
| Outcome | Not upheld |
| Remedy | HL is directed to pay Miss L £50 (already offered) for the delay in sending the second tender communication on 22 April 2025. No further remedy is ordered. |
Summary
Miss L complained that Hargreaves Lansdown failed in its duty of care by not ensuring she received three critical corporate action communications regarding shares held in her Lifetime ISA (share buyback notices on 30 January and 22 April 2025, and a delisting notice on 30 May 2025). She argued HL should have sent letters in addition to emails and should have sold her shares on her behalf to prevent significant losses. HL sent the communications via email and secure messages marked as urgent, in line with Miss L's paperless service preference, and took no action as it received no instructions from her. The ombudsman rejected the complaint, finding HL took reasonable steps to communicate the corporate actions and could not act without Miss L's instruction under the execution-only service arrangement. HL is directed to pay the £50 already offered for a delay in the second tender, with no further remedy ordered.
The Ombudsman's reasoning
The ombudsman found that HL provided services on an execution-only basis, meaning it could only act on Miss L's instructions and could not make investment decisions on her behalf. HL's terms required only 'reasonable endeavours' to communicate corporate actions, not communication by all means necessary. Since Miss L had chosen paperless email service and HL sent the communications via email and secure messages with clear urgent/deadline markers in the titles, the ombudsman was satisfied HL took fair and reasonable steps. The ombudsman rejected the argument that HL should have sold the shares on Miss L's behalf, as this would exceed HL's authority under the execution-only arrangement. The delay in the second tender was found to have had no material impact since Miss L had not acted on the first tender or delisting notice either.
How this compares
| Group | Decisions | Uphold rate |
|---|---|---|
| Hargreaves Lansdown Asset Management Limited, all decisions | 590 | 17% |
Source
Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website